Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/200011 Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzey and Tucker: All Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Genia Garcia, Associate Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary • Minutes of September 7, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of September 7, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: en�da: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 15, 2000. r1 \_J Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 SUBJECT: Natural Nails (Pam Ward, applicant) 615 East Balboa Avenue • Use Permit No. 3682 Request to approve a waiver of the off - street parking requirements for a personal service nail salon use on a property located in the SP -6 (RSC) District. The request is a waiver of six (6) parking spaces. Ms. Garcia, Associate Planner presented slides on the proposed application noting the following: 1,723 square footage of commercial use on bottom floor. • 3 residential dwelling units above the commercial uses. Nail salon, as comer tenant will occupy 720 square feet. 22 parking spaces required for total use. 16 parking spaces provided on site leaving a 6 -space deficit. Enclosed parking, both residential and commercial, with garage doors. • Several Municipal Parking lots located near the subject property. Public comment was opened. Pam Warden, agent representing the commercial property, noted that they understand and agree to the findings and conditions in the staff report. She noted that they are allotting extra parking resulting from vacancies for this tenant. However, when those vacancies are filled, there will be no extra parking allowed for the salon. At Commission inquiry, she answered that there are six extra spaces available for the nail salon and that there is a mixed use of both residential and commercial in the garage parking. Each of the commercial uses are allowed two double tandems and the residential uses are allowed a single tandem. Ms. Garcia noted that it appears that there is a vacancy in one of the upper residential units and also a vacancy in one of the commercial units. However, the parking required is based on full occupancy. Chairperson Selich noted that at full occupancy there is a deficiency of six spaces. Marcia Dossey, Asset Manager for the properly, noted that there is a deficiency of six spaces. She noted that they take great care on the tenant mix for the on- going use of residents and commercial uses. This property has been remodeled both inside and out. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the garage doors on the tandem spaces for commercial use that are to remain open during the day. Ms. Dossey answered that the garage doors on this particular unit share spaces with the residential uses. The doors are in place because of the residential INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3682 Denied • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 security issue at night. She noted that it is posted that the garage doors are to remain open during the day per Municipal Code. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted that this original project when approved was given the benefit of tandem parking. The garage doors were installed since the building was built. The garage doors have been closed during the day. It would be appropriate to deal with tenants who could live within the parking that has been provided for this building. Commissioner McDaniel asked if a donut shop was in that same place, would it require less parking? He was answered that a retail usage is based on 1 per 250. Chairperson Selich asked how there was tandem parking in a commercial use. He was answered that the project was approved by a Use Permit and that it was part of the approval. Ms. Garcia, referencing an exhibit, explained the commercial and residential parking that is provided on site. • Commissioner Gifford noted that she was on the Commission when this building was approved and that considerable benefit was given to it. There is ample opportunity to provide the parking for the nail salon and to work with the empty units that are there to find tenants that could live within the parking provided by the building. Motion was made to deny the waiver. Chairperson Selich stated that the motion for denial was based on the fact that this project was given substantial consideration for parking benefits in the use permit approval and that there are no sufficient grounds to expand that further by providing this waiver. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would not support the motion. He stated that there is a lot of public parking nearby and this is a good service use that is more local serving than a lot of the uses in the area. Commissioner Kranzley stated his support of the motion. Commissioner Agajanian stated his support of the motion adding that the parking spaces are oriented towards visitors. If we start allowing commercial uses to encroach upon the visitors' use of the spaces at critical times, it detracts from visitor use. I would hate to set some kind of precedent that lets everybody know that whenever they happen to be located in the area with public parking that it might be sufficient justification to not provide for their own parking requirements on site. • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: Tucker Absent: None EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 3682 Findings: 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 3682 will, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • Adequate parking is not provided on -site for the proposed use. • The municipal parking lots are filled mainly by beach users and tourists in the area, particularly on weekends when the, nail salon is open, and therefore, will not provide the additional parking spaces required for the use. SUBJECT. Santa Ana Heights Equestrian Park (County of Orange, applicant) 2202 Mesa Drive • Use Permit No. 3680 • Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Request to establish a park providing equestrian recreational opportunities for the public and nearby residents of Santa Ana Heights, and restoring the area known as "the mesa," which overlooks the back bay that has been damaged by equestrian activities, with native vegetation. Ms. Garcia noted that a packet containing additional response to comments had been distributed this evening. These additional mitigation measures can be added in response to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board comments. They are more specific requirements of the existing mitigation measures incorporated currently in the Negative Declaration. She then presented a visual presentation noting the following: • Proposed Santa Ana Heights Equestrian Park is located in the Santa Ana Heights unincorporated area, portions of which are in the City. • Area is surrounded by rural, equestrian, large lots, • Area is County owned and maintained. • Park is proposed for day use with no lighting required. INDEX Item No. 2 UP No. 3680 Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 • No structures on site. No boarding facilities. • No employees. • Access to the site will be from the County Regional Trail. • Minor grading on site is proposed to create the riding and lunging areas. • The Mesa is currently owned by the County and has no improvements on it. • The County will do re- vegetation of native plants on the Mesa. • Nearby private properties and golf course were exhibited. • Parking area at the Interpretive Center is not paved. At Commission inquiry, staff answered that the facility belongs to the County and there will be no liability on the City's part with approval of the project. Ms. Garcia noted that this facility is a park and the County will be maintaining it. It will have to go through Coastal Commission review. The adjacent property owner had noted his concern that a telephone is placed out at the Interpretive Center for emergency use. Public notice of this project was given to property owners within a 300 -foot radius. Fencing will be in place while the re- vegetation is in process on the Mesa. Ms. Temple added that a communication was received from the Planning and Development Services Department of the County of Orange with comments on the Negative Declaration. Staff has reviewed these comments. They do not identify any new impacts not identified in the initial study. However, they are suggesting some revisions to the language of the proposed mitigation measures to make them more precise and detailed. These can be incorporated and adopted as part of the Negative Declaration without re- circulation since the standards for re- circulation are not present. Public comment was opened. Mark Fsslinger, Project Planner for Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Project Area noted that he looks forward to working with City staff. He clarified: • Corral or holding pen rather than stalls. • No animals are to be left over night or boarded. • We will have to obtain a permit from the Orange County Flood Control District to ensure that their concerns are satisfied with regard to minimizing the impacts of runoff. At Commission inquiry he noted: • This is a small -scale limited neighborhood facility. • A Manure Management Plan will be provided to the City. • There will be a sprinkler system in place to control dust. • A firm experienced in designing equestrian facilities will be hired. That plan will then be submitted to the City for approval. . • Minimal landscape if required by the City will include any drought resistant trees. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 • Residential uses have access to this trail through Mesa Drive that connects to the Back Bay trail that leads to the project site and equestrian bridge. • This facility can accommodate a small number of horses. • Parking design at Interpretive Center will not allow horse trailers. • No formal organized events will take place at this site. • He agreed to add a condition that a Special Event Use Permit shall be required from the City for any event at the site. • Access to the site is to be from the existing Santa Ana Heights Regional Trail. • Mitigation measures recommended by the Water Quality Control Board are acceptable to the County. • Park Rangers, Code Enforcement officers and Sheriff Deputies will provide public safety. • Purpose of the rings will be for the exercising and training of the horses. Mr. Jeff Dickman of the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks noted that the Mesa area will be re- vegetated and will be fenced off during that period. The trail use will be next to the mesa. The horses will be prohibited on the Mesa because it will be a plant habitat. Hollie Jarvis, Mesa Drive resident made herself available for questions by the Planning Commission, indicating support for the project. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 3680 and Acceptance of a Negative Declaration as amended by incorporating the changes in the letters submitted by the County and the Water Quality Control Board and addition of dust control in Mitigation Measure 3 as well as the addition of the requirement for a Special Event Use Permit. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3680 Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findinas: 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 3. A siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department. The plan shall be a complete plan for dust control and temporary and permanent facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. (In particular, the plan shall address the manner in which manure and other debris will be removed.) A copy of the plan shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 5. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program, which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 6. The project shall incorporate all appropriate BMP's pursuant to the NPDES requirements. These BMP's shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 7. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; construction activities are prohibited on Sunday or any federal holiday. 8. Construction equipment shall not be stored within any streambed. Fueling, lubrication, and maintenance equipment shall not be located within any streams or areas where contaminants could be washed into a water body. No waste material shall be discharged to any drainage areas, channels or streams. Spoil sites shall not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed into a water body. 10. The applicant shall utilize a variety of special BMPs to mitigate water quality impacts. These BMPs shall be incorporated into a Manure Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. Such BMPs shall include, but not be limited to, selections from the BMPs listed in the Pierce County, Washington, and Santa Monica Bay Restoration project Web Sites (see attached), which are summarized below: • Covering the ground with vegetation, mulch sawdust, or other absorbent material; • Planting vegetation on the channel bank to prevent erosion; • Using vegetated biofilters; • Using grassy or vegetated swales to filter runoff before it enters the channel; • Using fencing to limit how close animals can get to the channel; • Shoveling up manure, rather than hosing it down; • Locating manure storage areas where storm runoff will not wash nutrients into the channel; • Covering and providing proper containment (berms), around manure storage areas; • Storing manure in fly -tight containers with lids or other equivalent methods; • Using catch basin inserts i.e., Water Quality Inlets (S 16, in the DAMP); Facility design considerations include depicting the location and orientation of the riding arena and specifying the location(s) where temporary boarding of horses would occur, such that impacts of manure would be minimized. For example: • Locate temporary stables such that runoff is directed away from the channel; • Provide minimum setbacks for temporary stables; • Design the project grading to maximize filtration and infiltration of runoff before it reaches the channel (maybe using vegetated swoles); • Install gutters or diversion terraces to divert runoff away from areas where manure build -up is anticipated. Some of the above BMPs, as well as others, may involve facility design • considerations, which could impact the layout and configuration shown on the approved Site Plan. It may therefore be appropriates to consider the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 need for any revisions to the project Site Plan before project approval is considered. It also appears that the Condition SC 8-4 should be modified to clarify that all structural and post - construction nonstructural BMPs selected for this project will be identified and described in detail in a WQMP that will be required to be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the County DAMP. B. Use Permit No. 3680: Findinas: 1. The Land Use Dement of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Single Family Detached" residential use and an equestrian park is permitted within this designation. 2. The approval of Use Permit No. 3680 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Also, the waiver of parking will not be • detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: • The equestrian arena will facilitate the equestrian usage in the Santa Ana Heights area and will complement the existing equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle trail facilities that currently serve the area. • The equestrian park is consistent with the policies of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. • The facility will not necessitate extensive construction and development activity that would adversely affect adjacent land uses, including the residential development and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. • The equestrian arena does not include stables, short or long -term features that would allow the keeping of animals, rather the facility is to be operated as a day -use facility only. • The project is compatible and complementary to the existing and surrounding land uses. • No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of the property within the proposed development as no public easements other than utility easements that serve the property are present. 0 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Conditions of Approval: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 3. Fencing for the lunging area, riding arena, trail fencing along the Delhi Channel shall be limited to 5 feet in height. 4. A minimum 6 -foot high chain -link fence shall be installed at the eastern properly line between the subject property and the adjacent residential properly. • 5. The facility is for day -use only and no site lighting is permitted. 6. All "guide" or directional signs for the project shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 7. Address signs for the equestrian park shall be posted at the Mesa Drive entrance and on the subject property to facilitate identification of the site by emergency personnel and the public. 8. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 9. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. Special Events held at the facility shall be subject to a Special Event Permit approved by the City pursuant to Chapter 5.10 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision & Design Framework Amendment No. 906 10 INDEX Item No. 3 A 906 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 • Amendment No. 906 Adopt the Strategic Vision and Design Framework to establish policies for future development on Mariners' Mile. The Strategic Vision includes the promotion of a pedestrian oriented retail area called the "Mariner's Village" in the area of Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue. To implement the Strategic Vision and Design Framework, Amendment No. 906 would amend Chapter 20.42 Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan and create a new overlay district covering the commercial and mixed -use properties on Coast Highway between Rocky Point and Dover Drive. The amended specific plan and new overlay will implement new development standards (i.e. landscaping, architecture, signs) and land use policies for projects within the area. The amendment will not change the existing permitted uses or permitted building heights. Senior Planner, James Campbell noted a memo presented for the Commission's consideration. This memo was a result of a meeting with Commissioner Tucker on the suggested corrections to the Code. Commissioner Kiser recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Tucker suggested that items 5 and 12 be deleted from the memo. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted discussion item 13 on the memo relates to the articulation of pole signs. He suggests that language be added regarding the stock of the pole so that it may have articulated features. He wants to use, 'encourage articulation', instead of 'requirement'. The concept of a heritage sign requires a process to keep a sign that otherwise does not comply. At the end, there is a provision that states you can not remove a heritage sign. I don't understand why the person who wanted to claim a heritage sign could not then remove it. I suggest that the language that refers to the prohibition of deletion of a heritage sign should be deleted. The way the Ordinance was originally proposed, site plans would have to go through a development plan process that involves a public hearing. It included sign approvals or initiation of landscape rehabilitation, staff has changed it so that landscaping rehabilitation does not have to go through a public hearing. The public hearing is a time consuming process for something that is still going to be looked at by the Planning Director. The appeal process is still the same. I feel the some way about an existing sign. If there is going to be a change, it should not be forced through a public hearing process. It is still going to be reviewed. I think this is a great start and I am very supportive of what was done. Commissioner Gifford suggested that with respect to signs not permitted, to include changeable copy (marquis style) signs. On page 28 of the booklet that 11 INDEX Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 constitutes Exhibit A, the illustration is one we are trying to get away from. I understand the desire for identification for Mariners Mile, but what I would like to see specified that the graphics are for illustrative purposes only and the language of 2.22 read, 'Installation of a new "Welcome to Mariner's Mile" sign at the new Arches Bridge at Newport Boulevard facing southbound Pacific Coast Highway traffic' This would allow a sign similar to whatever sign is at the other end of Mariner's Mile. One of the things that was nice about this plan was the theme of design continuity, having the two entry monuments from both the Dover /PCH and the Arches Bridge /PCH perhaps be the same. I suggest that we don't adopt, as a matter of City policy, that the lighted channel lettered sign like this would be put on the bridge. Chairperson Selich noted support of the changes made by Commissioner Tucker and Commissioner Gifford. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood asked for clarification of the alteration of heritage signs. Commissioner Tucker stated that if an applicant decides to take down a heritage sign, the Planning Director should not have a say in that. Ms. Wood noted that the language on Section 5 page 30 is not consistent. A decision needs to be made whether to allow the Planning Director to permit the removal or just leave the language that the owner may remove or alter it, but if the owner chooses to do that, then the heritage status is lost and he has to comply with the new regulations. The concern I have with the Planning Director approval is that without any guidelines or findings to be made, we are leaving it up to one person's opinion as to whether the sign is liked or not. Commissioner Tucker noted that the cleaning or maintaining of a heritage sign should not revoke its status. But if the sign is otherwise removed, then its status is revoked. Keenan Smith, City Lights Design agrees with the assignation suggested that allows for the routine maintenance and cleaning of the sign and allows for the owner to remove it for any reason he desires. I like the idea of the revocation of the heritage sign status if the owner decides to alter or remove it. Commissioner Gifford asked about the flags mounted to the Arches Bridge and the Back Bay Bridge. It's nice to have banners, but if this is adopted as City policy, does it pre -empt the rights to putting flags here to the association so that other events could not put flags there? You could read this to say that Mariners' Mile gets to install the flags and own the flag rights to those poles. Ms. Wood answered that I never thought that was the intent. In light of the change on page 27 where the language says the following graphics are illustrative and apply to all the sections that follow, that concern should be 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 covered. Moffon was made by Commissioner Gifford for the adoption of the Mariners Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework with suggested amendments stated in the memorandum to the proposed ordinance with the exception of items 5 and 12; understanding the clarifications of items 13, 15 and 17; and adding changeable copy as prohibited signs to item 5, page 27 of the Specific Plan District #5 and in any other place that it may appear in all the documents looked at tonight. At staff request, Commissioner Tucker clarified that item 17 regarding holding a public hearing on an application for a Development Plan. If it is a sign of the same basic size and location then it does not need to go through a public hearing. If it is a sign in a different size or location, then it does. I am talking about the replacement that is substantially the some in size and location is the one that I don't think needs to go back through. If someone has a sign that is rusting out and looking old and faded and they want to come in and put in a size that is basically the same size and in the same location, they do not need to go through the 10 to 60 day process. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: . None Absent: None Recused: Kiser SUBJECT: Annexation of Newport Coast /Ridge Area • GPA 99 -3(C), • Zoning Amendment No. 902 (PC Nos. 52 and 53), and • Development Agreement No. 14: Proposed General Plan Amendment, prezoning, and development agreement necessary to provide for annexation of the Newport Coast /Ridge area to the City (see vicinity map). Commissioner Gifford recused herself from this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Larry Lawrence, City's consultant for this project noted the following: • City Council initiated annexation proceedings for the Newport Coast, Newport Ridge areas last year. • Staff has initiated the General Plan Amendment and pre- zoning actions needed to identify the permitted land uses and other regulations that will apply to the area upon approval of the annexation application by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). • The proposed annexation area encompasses 5,441 acres at the 13 INDEX Item No. 4 GPA 99 -3 (C) A No. 902 DA No. 14 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 southeastern boundary of the City between the ocean and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. • The entire area is within City's Sphere of Influence adopted by LAFCO. • The annexation area includes the northeasterly portion of the Newport Coast LCP Planned Community, which takes up the coastal zone portion of the annexation area. • The overall LCP area actually extends all the way down to Laguna Canyon Road beyond the annexation area. The Newport Coast LCP covers a wide area and the annexation area within the City's sphere is only about half of that area (4,700 acres). • The LCP annexation area includes most of the beach portion of Crystal Cove State Park but not the inland portion. • The Newport Ridge Planned Community is the development area north of the Newport Coast LCP and north of that up to the San Joaquin Corridor is the area called the residual area that consists of open space, the old San Joaquin Reservoir, the Coyote Canyon Landfill and the new Sage Hill private school. • The proposed procedure is to adopt the existing County Land Use designations and Zoning for the development areas as embodied in the Newport Coast Local Coast Program and Newport Ridge Planned • Community Program documents. Adopt conventional zoning for the residual area, which is consistent with the existing County designations of the area. • The City would adopt both a Development Agreement with The Irvine Company that is consistent with the existing Development Agreement between The Irvine Company and the County and a Joint Powers Agreement with the County that would retain County jurisdiction over land use and development within the annexation area. • The purpose of keeping the land use jurisdiction with the County after annexation is to ensure that development of the area and the dedication of valuable habitat area under the NCCP is administered by County staff familiar with all the provisions of the LCP and PC documents and conditions of the Development Approval in a manner that is consistent with the complex plans that are the result of years of planning and environmental analysis. • County Development Review process - the Newport Coast LCP requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), which is an area plan showing land use area, circulation and infrastructure, not generally project or site specific. In addition, the County can also require the processing of a Site Development Permit, which includes review of site plans, architecture and landscaping plans. These would be site specific. • All residential and commercial development require the approval of a CDP by the County Planning Commission. In the case of Newport Ridge, a Site Development Permit is required for commercial and medium to high - density residential development. • The pre- zoning would establish a PC Development Plan consisting of the Newport Coast LCP for the Newport Coast area and the Newport Ridge 14 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Planned Community Program for the Newport Ridge area conventional OS -P, Open Space Passive and GEIF zoning would be applied to the residual area. These zoning districts would become effective upon approval of the annexation by LAFCO. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning designations, draft Development Agreement and the Negative Declaration to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Ms. Temple added that the issue of the County's retention of the land use jurisdiction is only for the completion of the initial development as covered by the planning documents. Land use authority will revert to the City for the longer term once the initial development is completed. Chairperson Selich asked what the definition of completion of development is? He was answered that the documents in draft form include this phrase and is part of the details that need to be worked out. Chairperson Selich asked if this plan was amended through the County, this • completion of development for the plan, is it annexed, or as completion of development as they may amend the plan? For example, they talk here that the plan will be completed in 2015, but these hotel sites have not been moving so it may drag out longer than that. They decide to go back and amend the plan and put something in different in one of the hotel sites. Would it be completion of development on the original plan or the modified plan? Ms. Clauson answered that through the completion date or turnover date that is anticipated or agreed upon any amendments would be processed through the County. Anticipatory build out date is 2015, which is the date that they are held to. If the hotel sites were not built out at that time, it would transfer back to the City irrespective of whether the hotels were built or not. The date is the controlling factor. As things are developed, the agreement would terminate for those final development projects in those areas. Commissioner Tucker asked what happens if something different happens? What if The Irvine Company decides it wants to do a General Plan Amendment? It isn't in the existing Development Agreement, and it may be that the County has retained the processing approvals for processing what is there. I would imagine that to be subdivision maps, that type of thing. But a wholesale change in land use, is that something that the City processes or does the County have the authority to change what we thought we were getting without us having any say so in it? Ms. Clauson answered not to the extent that it would change the Land Use Element or the General Plan that we are adopting in this process, that would is have to be approved by the City. She agreed that it is just plans that are 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 processed that are consistent with the zoning in the General Plan that presently exist. The County would not be able to process it in the manner that would change our General Plan without the City processing it as well. The Agreement does not discuss whether the City must go along with the County decision in this particular instance. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that if The Irvine Company does not change any of the land use or zoning items, we do not review anything and that would also entail the Site Plan for the commercial center in Newport Ridge. Can we add something that makes it clear that a change in the land use has to be processed through the City as a General Plan Amendment? Ms. Clauson answered that the comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission on this type of an issue can be incorporated and considered. The understanding and agreement of this document and the whole zoning and annexation that we are going through is that The Irvine Company wants to be able to develop the property in accordance with their current entitlements. That is what we are trying to reach an agreement on, not to allow them to change those entitlements in the future. A wholesale change of the entitlements of what they have envisioned would require Coastal • Commission considerations as well as other considerations. Ms. Wood noted that this point is addressed in the Development Agreement Section 4.4 where it refers to changes and amendment. It is acknowledging that over time there may be development of approvals. 'City shall expressly permit and authorize modifications of any proposed changes in the existing Development Approvals or Development Plan that are consistent with the Land Use Element designations for the Property.... Further limitations can't reduce open space, amount of property tax revenue that would come to the City or increase the density and /or intensity of development...' Ms. Clauson noted she could look at additional language. Commissioner Tucker is looking at anything that would change our General Plan or our Land Use Element as we are adopting it here. Continuing, she added that the excerpt above does cover it because it states changing the density and /or intensity of the development as well as any use as it would change the nature of the entitlements. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the [c] Zoning and rezoning adopted by the County or the City under Section 1.1.6. Ms. Clauson answered that she is not looking at this as a definition of the development approvals, my understanding is as they are at the time this agreement is entered into. • Continuing, Commissioner Agajanian asked about item 15, Section 7.2. 'In the event any Development fees or taxes are imposed on Development of the 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to receive from CITY restitution ...' Is this money that was over paid to the County, and would the City have to make up the difference? Ms. Clauson answered as she was not part of the negotiations and did not know what the intent was behind this, she could not answer. Chairperson Selich asked where the city limits would be in relation to the Newport Coast LCP, whose sphere of influence would the land east of that location be? Ms. Temple answered that there was a time when the County was considering placing that area in the Laguna Beach Sphere of Influence, but that City was not interested. Therefore, that particular area is not currently in any sphere of influence. Approximately, everything southerly or easterly of Crystal Cove State Parks would be in the City of Laguna Beach Sphere of Influence since that is the dedication area that represents the completion of the Laguna green belt in that area. Commissioner Tucker referred to Section 4.4. The first sentence states that, ..'The • parties acknowledge that development of the project will likely require subsequent development approvals, and that in connection therewith OWNER may determine that changes are appropriate and desirable in the existing development approvals or development plan. In the event OWNER finds that such a change is appropriate or desirable, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to prior development approvals or the development plan to effectuate such change, which application shall be processed for approval by County.' So it is the County that will process that approval to our General Plan? Ms. Clauson agreed that is what this document is presenting. Ms. Wood added that as long as the changes are consistent with our Land Use Element. Ms. Clauson read, 'CITY shall expressly permit and authorize modifications of any proposed changes in the existing development approvals or development plan that are consistent with the Land Use Element designations for the property unless the proposed modifications would materially......' The agreement lets this happen as long as it is consistent. Commissioner Tucker asked if this means that there is any review by us for consistency with the Land Use designation? How is it that we do that? Chairperson Selich added that as long as any change is consistent, the City's General Plan is the plan they are adopting so they are making an amendment • to that plan and they are amending our plan. So their amendment is automatically consistent. That is the deal that has been worked out, the land 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 use approval has been ceded over to the County. Mr. Lawrence added that the language expressly eliminates General Plan Amendments from provisions of this Section. Commissioner Tucker answered that is the part that is not clear. Ms. Clauson added that the changes have to be consistent with the Land Use Element and the Land Use Element is part of the City's General Plan. It says specifically, that it has to be consistent with the City's Land Use Element. Chairperson Selich stated that the land use plan on the vicinity map has nothing designated by the City, it is all the County's plan. The County's is the City's. The County is proposing to change theirs and we are saying that if they are proposing to change theirs, as long as it is consistent with ours, but theirs is ours, this is a circular deal. Commissioner Tucker suggested that as long as they are not amending the General Plan, the theory is it is consistent with the existing land use element, if it is not, then it should require involvement by the City. I think it needs an express statement. If that is what the intent is, that they are not going to be able to come in and change the General Plan because that by definition would be inconsistent with the Land Use Element, then why don't we have more affirmative language that says that so it is clear? Ms. Clauson stated that the process we are going through now is to adopt the provisions of their Land Use Element as our own. Once it is adopted, your interpretation of this is that they could later amend it and then by amending it also amend ours by reference. Commission agreed. Continuing, Ms. Clauson stated we would clarify that they can not do that. Chairperson Selich stated that for example, the hotel site is the most risky. Let's say they decide to change it to office, which is something totally different. Now, what would the City's role be in that if the County or the Irvine Company wanted to amend the plan that gets processed through the County? Ms. Clauson answered that her interpretation of the agreement and with the clarifications will make it that they can not do that. This agreement does not allow them to do that. Chairperson Selich noted that is the intent and you will look at getting the language squared away for that. Commissioner Kiser noted that is the way he reads this section, as circular reasoning. Development Approvals as defined in Section 1.1.6 includes • General plans and general plan amendments adopted by the County or the City. 18 I:hlw* • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Ms. Clauson answered that is not the intention. I agree that this needs to be corrected. Commissioner Tucker suggested that in Section 4.4 before the sentence,.... CITY shall expressly permit and authorize... we add the sentence, 'The CITY shall have no duty to approve of a change to general plan designation of any portion of the property which exists as of the effective date hereof.' In other words, once this agreement becomes effective, that is the plan and they can build out that plan and process it through the County. Ms. Temple noted that the County and The Irvine Company developed the original LCP and very shortly after it was adopted, it was amended pursuant to the final action of the Coastal Commission. After several years, the County went through a process called the NCCP or Natural Communities Conservation Program. An outgrowth of that program was to define better ways to provide quality habitat preservation including areas in the Newport Coast. As a result, some areas that had been designated for residential were deemed by the NCCP to be important for habitat passage and connection. The Irvine Company and the County worked on an amendment to not change the • overall land use designations, not change the acreages of anything that was allocated for those various uses, but they did move things around in order to allow the superior habitat conservation plan to be institutionalized. The Irvine Company is interested in maintaining that ability through interaction with the County to make modifications to the plan. Where the line is drawn is significant changes; increasing in density, changing land use, which are not consistent with the concept of the plan as embodied in both the City's and County's General Plan. What we are trying to find is language that allows the County to continue to administer amendments that generally stay within the overall character and intent of the City's and County's General Plan. Anything that would constitute a significant revision to the project would need City approval. Ms. Clauson agreed and recognized the issue of the circularity of this provision in Section 4.4. We will work on language to make sure that does not happen. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern that once occupancy permits are issued then that constitutes completion. Who issues that occupancy permit, is it the County? He was answered yes. He asked who was paying for planning services? He was answered that the planning service fees are all being paid to the County for services provided. Hasa fiscal impact been done for this area? Ms. Clauson answered that the fiscal impact on the City and the return from this type of project is projected well above to handle any additional services. Dave Kiff, Assistant to the City Manager stated that an update to the fiscal analysis is done about every two months when we know more about the assessed values in the area and if the annexation proposal changes at all. It 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 consistently shows a net surplus to the City, which is part of the reason why the City is interested in this. There is money assigned to the Planning and Building Departments to actually transition the plans during that year period between occupancy and when we get the final plans. That is in our budget. There are a couple of shopping retail centers, one at the top of the hill at Newport Coast Drive and San Joaquin Hills and then a second one in the flat graded area as you drive down to Laguna on the left hand side of Coast Highway. Chairperson Selich asked why there is no land use designation on the land use diagram? Mr. Lawrence answered that in that the reference to the text of the General Plan Amendment is that contained in Exhibit GP -2 attached to the staff report. That language provides the flexibility and points up to the need for more specific language with regard to General Plan Amendments brought up in previous discussions. The flexibility is in order for the commonality between the Development Agreement and the General Plan text, without having map designations that might interfere with that. Public comment was opened. • Alan Beek, 2007 Highland spoke in opposition to this proposed action. This land is not appropriate for Newport Beach, it is in the character of the City of Irvine. It belongs in the City of Irvine, it is comprised of gated communities and not of our character. I recommend that you reject the application. In this case, the people are denied the opportunity of a referendum. We are helpless in the hands of the Planning Commission and the City Council. State Law will not let us vote on annexations, people have no say on what happens to the character and size of their City. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted that it is wrong to not have land use designations on the map. This is something that is meant to inform the public what our land use is and I don't see why we can't have the land uses designated. The language should indicate that there is flexibility rather than the other way around. Ms. Temple noted that she recommends that the current plans be mapped and within the text of the document, indicate the framework within which modifications are made and incorporate the concept of State Planning Law for General Plans that the Land Use map is a diagram and not meant to be so specific as to not allow some flexibility. We can make those changes along with the final actions on this part of the entitlement to the City Council. Commissioner Kranzley asked if any of these proposed actions could be • divided out. He was answered that these actions are being handled by one resolution. He noted that this process has been ongoing for some time. We are 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 doing some positive actions to make the City different from other communities. I am disappointed, however, that we don't have the opportunity in Newport Coast to have some of the same vitality and differentiation in this area. We are asked to put a lot of faith and hope in the hands of the Irvine Company or whoever the subsequent owner is in some of these properties in the County of Orange. The bottom line is that I am going to miss the open space down there, it has been a pleasant peaceful area and I have a hard time looking at the grading that is currently going on as the space disappears before my eyes. I am troubled that we are not going to have any say on these projects as they come up. Chairperson Selich noted that this area was planned for some 25,000 units many years ago. However, through negotiations, we have the open space there that we will enjoy after the development occurs. It is a for superior plan that what was proposed years ago. Commissioner McDaniel asked what would happen if we voted no tonight? He was answered that the Commission could vote not to recommend this to the Council. However, it will go to the Council, no matter what the recommendation is. • Commissioner Kiser commented that he could not vote on this tonight as he needs more time to read the documents that have been presented. I couldn't possibly, based on the issues that were raised tonight, vote yes to send this on to City Council. I have some real concerns with the way in which the Development Agreement leaves all the planning decisions to be made by the County and goes out to 15 years without any participation on our part. I have had only two days in which I was extremely busy to review this development agreement that was sent out on the 19th. I am not prepared regardless of what the past process has been or how many years it has been worked on. Regardless of how that property is developed now, it is not a part of our City so we do not have the kinds of control we have as a Planning Commission for property that is in the City of Newport Beach. If it is not in the City, it can be developed and we can decide later whether to annex it. My main point is that we have only had a couple of days to review the document. I would suggest a continuance of this until our next meeting, which would give me the time to review this matter in much more detail. Commissioner Tucker commented that this property is going to be developed the way that is presently proposed whether we like it or not. 1 think that our ability to have some say so in what happens over an extended period of time is probably worth while to us. If it is going to be developed and we are going to be impacted by that development, we might as well have some financial stake in what is going on. While I too certainly like to have the five few days we generally get to review the packages, sometimes it is shorter. The only issue to • me is the one that a deal is a deal, they can develop it the way it is designated now and as long as the City has a soy -so in any changes in the land uses other 21 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 than the carve out dealing with habitat matters, I think that is sufficient. It has been a City Council matter and we have not been involved with it. It ought to be sent to Council with our recommendations and let them deal with it. Chairperson Selich noted his support of comments made by Commissioner Tucker. There has been a committee that has negotiated this agreement. With the understanding that the Assistant City Attorney has on the clarification on that section regarding the changes in the plan, I think the intent of what has been negotiated in the Development Agreement is something that we should honor and move this forward. I don't think it is our role to get in there now and try to change major deal points that have been reached in the Development Agreement through the City sponsored negotiating committee. There are so many different parties and interests in this, and I support moving this on. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the previous comments. He added that he is concerned with the City relinquishing its control powers on land uses over to the County of Orange to continue with the development of this site. The City has local control of land uses and to separate ourselves from the actual decisions made there worries me. I would hate to see any further annexations where we have to do it piecemeal like this. • Ms. Clauson added that the concerns expressed by the Commissioners were part of the negotiations. There has been quite a bit of debate on this. i Commissioner Kranzley stated that the impacts are being felt in Newport Beach as this project is being built. I support moving this forward to City Council. Commissioner Tucker noted the frustration of getting complicated long documents late, but this Development Agreement will probably change several more times before it finally gets to the Council. We have a static document right now, and we can make a suggested change, which the essence is the City shall have no duty to approve of a change to the land use designations of any portion of the property as of the effective date. The language will have to allow the Irvine Company the flexibility to address habitat types of issues where they have effectively kept the spirit of the existing General Plan designation even though it may move. The overall intensification and types of uses specified in the plan today are not going to be changed unless the City allows that to happen. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 99 -3 [C] and Amendment No. 902 (PC Nos. 52 and 53) and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration with the recommendation of language change in Section 4.4 Development Agreement. This language is to resolve the circular logic issue of the plan changes as well as staff modifying the Land Use Plan Map as discussed. 0 Rko0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: Kiser Absent: None Recused: Gifford SUBJECT: Balboa Sign Overlay • A No. 907 Proposed sign regulations for commercial properties on the Balboa Peninsula and amendments to the Zoning Code to implement the new sign regulations. Mark Brodeur, Urban Design Studios, 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine consultant for the City on this project presented a brief overview of the sign overlay guidelines noting the following while presenting a slide demonstration: • This ordinance is to encourage businesses on Balboa Peninsula to use signs that adequately advertise themselves and provide identification on the street while ensuring that the signs contribute positively to the charm and character of the Peninsula. • Prohibited signs once this overlay is approved will be - pole signs of which • there is a large number; internally illuminated can signs with a translucent plastic face; inflatable signs; vehicle signs. • Permitted signs ground signs; roof signs; wall signs; directory; projecting; canopy; awning and window signs all with restrictions as called out in the overlay program. • Included in the overlay program are helpful hints on designs and color, types of materials, legibility, illumination and creative sign permit. • A Creative Sign Permit allows for a sign that meets certain sign criteria can be approved by the Planning Commission. The creative sign has to have a certain conceptual criteria relative to Balboa Peninsula and architectural criteria that have to fit in the building and the location in scale and composition. • A number of signs will be made non - conforming once this overlay is approved and will no longer be permitted. The City will provide business owners with an impetus to remove their signs by the following schedule: Years 1 and 2 - the City would provide professional removal, new sign design as well as professional sign fabrication. Years 3 and 4 - the City would remove the sign and provide a new sign design. Years 5 and 6 - the City would remove the sign and waive the fees Year 2015 - deadline for all prohibited signs to be removed Commissioner Gifford noted this is a great program. She noted that as a member of the committee who worked on this there was a great deal of discussion. Does the finished document miss anything? iMr. Brodeur answered that in his opinion, allowing roof signs is something that 1 23 INDEX Item No. 5 A No. 907 Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 would not recommend. I can not think of a City that I have worked with that allows roof signs as part of a new ordinance. The changeable copy signs I think do more than identify a business. Basically signs are for identification, not to advertise. There is still an exemption for time and temperature. The reason I bring this up is, I remember you discussing at quite a length the last time I was here a proposal for a time and temperature display. If you want to remain consistent on that action, you might recommend to City Council, as a modification to this document, that we look at the time and temperature exemption. Maybe you can permit them with certain requirements rather than exempt them. There are a number of signs that are permitted that are valuable and normally would not be permitted in most business, i.e., 'A' frame signs, under canopy signs, projecting signs, those types. Because of the 'main street' type businesses, studies have shown that those types of signs are very valuable to these types of businesses whereas roof signs and changeable copy signs have not shown that some value. Ms. Wood noted that the provision for the 'A' frame sign is in conflict with Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, which prohibits the use of public streets for commercial displays. If the 'A' frame signs in the public right of way are something that the Planning Commission feels strongly are beneficial and should be included in this Ordinance, then you need to recommend that the City Council amend Chapter •10 to make it consistent. Mr. Edmonston added that there is a Policy and I think that these are a code enforcement nightmare waiting to happen. Because they are portable, the ones that crop up now have been routinely been denied with a couple of exceptions along the Edgewater area in front of the Fun Zone. Those tend to move around a lot. The owner may put them where they belong, or not where they belong, each day when he brings them out, a passerby may move them. They just don't seem to stay where they belong. There is a real concern of allowing these up and down the Peninsula. Commissioner Kranzley stated he is not in favor of changeable copy signs, nor time and temperature signs. What is the argument for roof signs? Mr. Brodeur answered that there are a couple of roof signs on the Peninsula. Most people would say that those roof signs do not create a bad physical sign environment. Some people tell you that they are quite attractive and dear to their hearts. There was preponderance on the committee that they did not want to start to prohibit those kinds of signs because they didn't really want to see a particular sign go away. Chairperson Selich asked if you could still allow a roof sign under the Creative Sign Program it they come up with an unusual sign design and meet the criteria? Technically there are some other pole type signs that should not be allowed, but they are very creative and have been done tastefully. Mr. Brodeur answered yes, we could go ahead and prohibit roof signs and the 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 only roof signs that would be allowed were ones that went through the Creative Sign process. Pole signs are allowed through the Creative Sign process as well. A roof sign is permitted as a right, but it has to be approved as a creative sign. If the sign is already permitted, perhaps the sign does not have to be as creative or as great as a pole sign. The committee felt that pole signs should just be prohibited and to get a creative sign pole sign would be a harder sell. Commissioner Tucker noted that there were pole signs in the Mariner's Mile issue. A requirement for an articulated base and a requirement for an articulated cap encourages articulation of the pole. What people think of as a pole sign is the white metal thing with no articulation with a sign on top of the pole. If you take an articulated base, articulated cap with something in between and the sign sticks off the side of the structure, it can be very attractive. Mr. Brodeur agreed noting that you can make a recommendation to place pole signs out of the prohibited chapter into the permitted chapter with a requirement for creative sign, the same as we have done with a roof sign. Ms. Wood noted that the difference in thinking between the two areas was the pedestrian versus the highway character and the feeling that on Mariners Mile • there is a greater need for a pole sign and there is less of that on the Peninsula. If you reduced the height limit to what was suggested for the village area of Mariners Mile, it might be more appropriate. Commissioner Agajanion noted his support of the program. He asked about the allowable projection of signs over the public right of way. Is it needed, was there strong support? Mr. Brodeur answered that in most downtown areas, the storefront is immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and if you want to have a projecting sign, you are in that condition that precludes you from having one. Most projecting signs project as much as seven feet out from the face of the building. I have never had a downtown merchant or city engineer tell me it is bad as long as there are certain clearances from the bottom of the sign, in other words, people can't strike it with a stick as they are walking by and destroy the sign. They have been used in downtowns for hundreds of years. That use is appropriate. Because of the type of businesses at the right of way, you would preclude the use of a projecting sign, which has been historically appropriate for a sidewalk adjacent storefront. Mr. Edmonston noted that in some areas we are looking at providing a very wide sidewalk in re -doing Balboa. I can't imagine that we would want a sign that was stuck ten -feet out from the building that was still two -feet back to curb and only eight feet above the ground. A building that is not sitting on the properly line, to not have them encroach into the public right of way would be appropriate. • Mr. Alford pointed out that this is not something that is proposed by this overlay. It is currently in the Code for all areas of the City and is the same as the clearances 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 and projection limitations described in this document. Commissioner Kiser stated that there has to be some exception for the changeable copy signs for theater marquis, gas stations and museums. Mr. Brodeur answered that excluded from a recommendation to prohibit changeable copy signs would be theater marquis. Under the types of signs that are exempt in the current Sign Ordinance, are bulletin boards for things such as public education or religious institutions. The movie marquis are also exempt. At Commission inquiry, he added that there are two types of banners. Banners placed within the public right of way on light poles that are erected by the City or Chamber of Commerce are not prohibited. The other type of banner is the promotional banner. We permit promotional banner signs and allow one for each business, has to be 32 square feet and below the roof line and can only be up for a total of 90 days per year. Additionally, if someone wants to put up a neon beer sign in his or her window, if it is within 3 feet of the glass, it qualifies as a window sign. If it is inside the establishment, back 3 feet it falls within an interior sign and is not regulated. If it is within 3 feet of the window then it can cover only 20% of that window. The sign can be neon, cut metal, wood, etched, etc. It • was discussed that the maximum sign area for window signs is 20 percent of window area for solid sign and 50% of window area for channel letters and must be permanently placed on glass. This recommendation came from the steering committee at their last meeting. Mr. Alford added that there was no illumination on neon window signs allowed. Commissioner Kiser asked about signs that emit noise, smoke, flashing, moving, etc., are they prohibited? Staff answered that in a general statement in the overlay, Chapter 20.67 provisions would prevail. Noise is covered under the Noise regulations and any other types of emissions might also fall under the definition of an animated sign (an action or movement of some type). Chairperson Selich asked about the cumulative square footage of signs on one building if you were to take all these different signs and put them on a building. Is this overlay more or less restrictive on terms of square footage of signs than are permitted under the existing Sign Ordinance? Mr. Brodeur answered that it is less restrictive than the current Ordinance because of the allowance of projecting signs, roof signs, wall signs, and window signs. Those four categories alone take you beyond the categories currently permitted. On the building, wall sign, projecting sign, awning sign, banner signs, roof sign and window sign, six types of signs are allowed. Chairperson Selich commented that one of the failures of the existing Sign Code • is that it is too permissive on the amount of square footage, so wouldn't it stand to reason that even though all of these signs are permitted, there would be some 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 maximum of square footage that would be allowed? Mr. Brodeur answered that the type of sign going to be permitted on Balboa Peninsula are the types that are shown historically to work for downtown main street types of businesses. The current Sign Code allows larger wall signs but it does not allow the various types of signs that we are going to permit on the Peninsula. A business on the Peninsula is going to be able to have four different types of signs, awning, roof, window, and wall signs. Those types of signs are all proportional to the types of businesses on the Peninsula. We went through an exercise with the committee depicting sizes of signs based on formulas. To try and regulate signs based on the maximum number of cumulative goes against the spirit of this Ordinance. The spirit is to help some of these small businesses identify themselves with these types of sings that we are bringing back. These same signs are inappropriate on Harbor Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway all the other major arterials. The Peninsula is a very different part of town and the types of signs allowed are appropriate to this area. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Brodeur explained that a window sign versus an awning sign versus a projecting sign wouldn't be visible from most angles. If you look straight at a sign, you are not going to see a projecting sign, and probably • not see the awning sign because it is constrained at ten inches on the awning valance. We selected the types of signs based on historic pictures for these types of buildings. The proportions of those signs are all appropriate. If a business uses all of these signs, the building will not looked cluttered because the proportions are specified in the overlay. Commissioner Tucker noted that over time the Crab Cooker signage has become an icon. Noting the Guidelines on page 44, it says that painted wall signs directly on the structure are encouraged. Why did the committee think this was a good idea? Mr. Brodeur answered that the Peninsula storefronts are adjacent to the back of the sidewalk. Historically, photos showing signs painted directly on the wall above the windows and awnings was a common practice. The other reason is that the committee felt that there needed to be an avenue for inexpensive type signs. They were afraid that some of the creative signs would essentially price some businesses out of business in trying to provide signs. Those are the two reasons, historic precedent and cost. Public hearing was opened. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to recommend approval of Amendment 907 to the City Council with the following changes: . Prohibit changeable copy signs excepting theater /movie marquis, and gas stations for the purpose only of pricing only. 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 • Eliminate the exemption for time and temperature signs. • Create maximum area for window signs of 20% across the board. • Pole signs - leave language as it is so there is a place for it with the Creative Sign Program but that it is not something that is encouraged as suitable for the area. • Prohibition of 'A' frame type signs. • Restriction on banners be a maximum of 30 days per use and 60 days per calendar year. • Only neon or channeled illumination shall be allowed at 20% as window signage. • Projecting signs limited to a maximum 4 feet (or 2 feet from within the curb, whichever is less). into the public right of way and 2.5 feet in height • Change text in the general provisions section V.A.9 - 'Signs attached to or placed on vehicles or trailers and which are visible from a public right -of- way except signs painted on or otherwise permanently attached to a vehicle in such a manner that the vehicle can be legally operated on public rights -of- way, GF a ePt Vehide signs +e..,..wai:iy G#GIGhed to , provided the primary purpose of the vehicle and the is regularly and customarily used of the vehicle is to transport persons or property for the business with the signs attached or placed in such a • . manner that the vehicle can be legally operated on public rights -of -way.' Corporate flags removed from list of permitted signs. • Multi- tenant signs approval authority by the Planning Director, not the Modifications Committee. Discussion on following ensued: • Dates updated. • Sign Permit application for a Creative Sign subject to approval by the Planning Commission. • Policing of banners. • Change in text on page 13 of the Guidelines for enforcement purposes. • Multi- tenant signs approval authority. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Coastal Bluff Development Review Establishment of development review processing for coastal bluff properties Senior Planner James Campbell noted a supplemental report for clarification of • recommendations that can be done on an urgency basis. 28 Item No. 6 Coastal Bluff Development Review Discussion Item • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Chairperson Selich noted that he was uncomfortable with any type of moratorium. He was under the misimpression that the Planning Commission could recommend some type of Urgency Ordinance. Staff has explained the legal limitations on this. I would not want to put any homes under a moratorium situation. It seems that the best we are going to be able to do is to urge the Council to direct staff to move ahead with developing a set of regulations that fulfill our intent as fast as possible. Staff can figure out what the correct techniques are, the sections of the code and whatever is needed to regulate it. Staff has made a recommendation on all Coastal Bluffs. My concern is primarily on Ocean Boulevard from Inspiration Point back to Poppy, because I think those are the lots that are most threatened. It is an economic situation and those are the most valuable lots where people would be inclined to spend the kind of money to do the kind of bluff alteration we saw at the last Commission meeting. Commissioner Kranzley expressed his concern about the bluff area that would include Kings Road. I am more interested in the cumulative effect throughout the City, so I would still be in favor of this working throughout the City. Commissioner Gifford asked staff that rather than draft something that integrates the whole situation, if you could do something more quickly related to just the • Corona del Mar bluff? Mr. Campbell answered that it would not be quicker, but the initial step we are looking at is just to get discretionary review and that is straight forward whether it be in a small or large area. Ms. Wood noted that if this was to be expanded to everything that meets the definition of coastal bluff citywide, it would take us a little extra time to determine which of those areas do meet that definition. Commissioner Kiser asked about the timing. If a moratorium was voted for and limited to the coastal bluffs at the Corona Beach area, how long would it take to go through the process of creating the development regulations that would be appropriate for that site? Ms. Temple answered that the typical cycle, once the regulations have been developed that you want to adopt in the conventional fashion, if contained within Title 20 requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council with adequate notice. It would have to be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act as to whether we would need any environmental documentation or not and it would require a minimum of two readings at the City Council. With a Negative Declaration, offer the regulations were developed we would be looking at something on the order of four to six months minimum. If we were to choose an approach that did not require anything more than an exemption under CEQA and did an amendment to Title • 15, which is the Building Code, that does not of necessity require Planning Commission review. 29 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Chairperson Selich stated that the City Council is expecting a recommendation from the Planning Commission for the meeting on Tuesday on this issue. Would it be appropriate then that if the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the Council that staff investigate all of the emergency avenues that are available for Ocean Boulevard on the short term and deal with all the bluffs as fast as you can through normal procedures. Staff answered that we do not have enough information to know whether we can do something like that to expedite. We can go back and explore other opportunities to move at least a partial solution more rapidly. Commissioner Tucker noted that we have a policy in place in the General Plan that we do not have the ability to implement the policy. I suggest that we make the recommendation to Council that staff figure out how best to get there in the quickest possible fashion. The policy states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Where the urgency comes up is there is not the level of clarity in the actual implementation • of that policy that there should be. We have now discovered that we should have had something in place that allowed us to implement that policy. Commissioner Kiser asked if this policy has no teeth in it, is there no way in which we can enforce this? Ms. Clauson answered that the existing regulations we have will take into consideration that policy. There is nothing additional to that. The policy is stated so that if you are making a decision on a Variance or a Modification or Site Plan review, the policy is there for consideration of your decision that you make on that. There aren't additional procedures to deal with a situation where it is not before you, when it is just a Building Permit. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that the concept of a moratorium is to maintain the status quo. If the concern and potential pressure is identified as being along Ocean Boulevard at this period of time, that is where the urgency exists and the status quo needs to be maintained. The proposal could be limited to that area if you establish those factors. Our proposal was that permits could still be issued as long as it was not outside the existing footprint or the existing grade on the property. We could if that is what is recommended where the urgency and status quo needs to be maintained. The point of the moratorium in this instance is for the purpose of conducting a land use study. Chairperson Selich stated he was not in favor of a moratorium for reasons I explained earlier and the way that staff has outlined it. If we were to do a • blanket moratorium and not let anyone do anything on those properties, that would not be very pleasant. I would like to find another way to deal with this 30 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 problem other than a moratorium, as you can end up with some unintended consequences that we may not even be aware of. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the statement. I haven't seen any evidence that there is a wholesale problem. What has prompted this whole thing was one exceptionally ambitious proposal that came before us. I would suggest that we make a motion that recommends to the Council that regulations be adopted to review and evaluate bluff and cliff developments along Ocean Boulevard in order to implement Land Use Element Policy D. Commissioner Tucker asked staff at what point an applicant becomes bound by the new regulations if they are adopted by City Council. What if the applicant had applied for the permit before the Ordinance passed? Ms. Wood answered that it depends on how flexible the City Council wants to be, the Ordinance can have a grandfathering provision written into it through which someone who had submitted for a Building Permit as of such and such a date, can proceed under the old rules. Or, the Council could say unless the Building Permit is issued by the effective date. • Commissioner Tucker stated that the Planning Commission is saying, here is a problem. We have a very important policy, which we do not have a way to implement and we suggest that you adopt regulations. The Council will decide whether there is going to be grandfathering and how important it is to act on our recommendation and how quickly they want to act. Discussion continued on the need, recommendation and timing of a moratorium, inclusion of grandfathering clauses, timing of plan submittals, current project applications and delays of planning processes. Public comment was opened. Lawrence Tabak, 3431 Ocean Boulevard read from a letter that he had written to Councilmember O'Neil regarding a moratorium on building permits as it relates to his property. Chairperson Selich advised Mr. Tabak to meet with the Planning staff regarding his plans Commissioner Tucker noted to Mr. Tabak that there is a policy that exists in City documents but there is nothing that implements that policy. By sending this along to Council, we think they ought to come up with some type of regulations that implements this policy. How they choose to do that is really their decision. We are not getting specific about it here. The reason for the motion being what it is to turn the matter over to staff, City Attorney and let the Council figure out what • they want to do is to bring to their attention this policy. We are getting proposals for houses that are 5,000 to 12,000 feet. 'What do you want to do Council ?' They 31 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 set the policy; we just carry it out. When we see something where there is a clear divergence of what the policy is versus what the regulations require, we bring it to their attention. You have heard a discussion about moratorium that did not end up going anywhere. We talk these things through in a public forum. You have heard what the sense is, your approach in dealing with the Councilmember is the right approach, and you should do that to try to influence how that discussion gets carried out ultimately. The Council will decide how they want to deal with this, how to implement this policy, what they want to do. Public comment was closed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: Gifford Absent: None SUBJECT: Fletcher Residence 21 Bay Island Review of Condition No. 3 of Modification Permit No. 4919 regarding the removal • of a tree located on the subject property in conjunction with the construction of a new single family dwelling. L Ms. Temple stated that staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission if they Ash to set this modification for review. Chairperson Selich stated he would like to know from the applicant why they did not preserve the tree. Ms. Temple answered that we requested that information from the homeowner, but have not received it. They have been informed of the discussion tonight and are not in the audience. We have no course of action unless you would like to call up the permit for review. Commissioner Kranzley noted that when he read through the minutes, he pointed out that it appears that the obligation was only that it they could keep the tree, they would. It was not that they were required to keep the tree, there was no condition stating that. Chairperson Selich stated that he had assumed that if a condition was placed on a project, staff, during the permit administration, would require the applicant to provide some evidence before the tree was removed, it has to be removed for this or that reason. That would be submitted and staff would review it and say okay, your reason is acceptable, it is not possible to save the tree and go ahead and take it out. 32 INDEX Item No. 7 Discussion Item Only Continued • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Ms. Temple agreed that is correct. In talking to staff she determined that it was a training problem and the person who signed off on it thought this was very loose and did not require us to do anything. The staff has been instructed on how to handle by including our urban forester in any future similar conditions for his determination. The department accepts responsibility for not adequately overseeing the enforcement of that condition. We are still attempting to get information from the homeowner. I will keep it on the agenda as a means to get a report. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of September 12th, the City Council received a report from their Task Force on Affordable Housing with a recommendation to send a letter to the Irvine Company to proceed with doing a Senior Affordable Housing Development on Lower Bayview Landing that would fulfill The Irvine Company's responsibility for affordable housing for all the market rate units they did as part of CIOSA, the area is designated Retail and Service Commercial and is limited to a use of either a 10,000 square foot restaurant or a 45,000 square foot athletic club with a specific allowance for 120 senior citizen units with and underlying PC zoning and • PC text. Additionally, the Newport Dunes Resort was removed from calendar at the request of the applicant. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that the EDC reviewed the Development Plan Ordinance and a committee has been appointed to look at it. There was concern expressed as to the level of involvement of the Planning Commission dictating details and how much time it would add to the process on the smaller projects. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kiser asked for a briefing on the sign for Lovely Nails on Coast Highway, and if it was a roof sign. Commissioner Tucker asked staff about the whether the implementation of a design review type of requirement will mean that projects that are not presently subject to a CEQA review will have to go through the CEQA review? d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioners Tucker and Kranzley suggested a change in the starting time for the meetings at 6:30 p.m. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford stated she would not be at the October 5 +h and 19}h meetings; Commissioner Tucker stated he would not be at the November 9th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. E STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 33 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment